Sunday, 25 December 2016

Lord, thank you for Cross. Thank you for the sacrifice. Thank you for
sparing nothing to set an example that endures even in the worst of times.

If there is one thing that defines your act, it is love. The Cross is
where love was hanged. It was a deliberate act, a premeditated deed. It stands
as a mockery to what the world stands
for. It is the world’s sore thumb. The world will never understand it.

You showed the world that there are things more lasting than gold or
silver. At the Cross, you rejected the devil’s proposal twice. You neither bowed
down nor gave in to his offers of riches, power and dominion over the world. In
the wilderness, you rebuked him in words, and at the Cross, you rebuked him in
deeds.

O Lord, the Cross drew the boundaries of freedom for me. It is a
freedom to love without condition. It is a freedom to choose truth over lies.
It is a freedom to give without taking, to sow in faith and to reap in hope, to
persevere for a cause that represents the ultimate truth in this world, and to live
an overcoming life.

The transforming power of the Cross is to set us free from desires
that seek to imprison us. The Cross breaks all mirages of power, idols of ambitions
and strongholds of blinding riches. It strips and lays bare the impoverishment of
all human desires. Under its searchlight, the Cross unravel realities to show
the ugly and destructive side of a heart that seeks only to serve itself and no
one else. If the heart is above all deceiving, then the Cross is above all
liberating.

For three days, as you hanged there, you captured the essence of what
it means to be your follower. It was never about prosperity. It was never
about possessing possessions. It was never about building mansions on earth.
Neither was it about making this world our home nor using worldly culture to
change worldly culture. For this love requires no human embellishments to reach the lost. Neither does this love need to be incentivized by the promises of abundant blessings to move hearts. The Cross has and will always be about love, your
prevailing love. It transforms hearts just as it is. Just as we are.

Oh Lord, what makes the Cross an exceptional guide in this world is
that it stands apart from this world. The Cross is an exception to the rule
because it is sustained by an enduring and timeless purpose that seeks to rule
our hearts with exceptional love. It is therefore separate from the world to
show the world that there is a better way, the way of love.

No theology, philosophy or science is able to capture this love in
the way you have embodied it at Calvary. This love makes all things beautiful.
It makes all things new again.

History was a bystander to the deeds of this love. It witnessed this love
going all the way. It did not fail. It did not give up. No flogging, nails or
thorns could stop this love from finishing his work. And indeed it fulfilled
the calling. It completed the race.

Oh Lord, that is what it means to be your follower. We are called to
embody this love. We are called to demonstrate this love in everything we do.
Only this love, this exceptional devotion, can transform both our hearts and
the hearts of those who experience it through our words and deeds.

This love changes everything. It transforms all relationships. It
nourishes the love of spouses. It sustains the bonds of friendships. It
refreshes maternal and paternal devotions. It convicts and turns a rebellious
heart around. It gives hope, deepens ties, encourages hearts, builds trust,
empowers faith and breathes life into a broken and jaded soul.

For this reason Lord, this love will resist all human efforts to institutionalize
it. It will resist our desires to keep it for ourselves. It will resist our
misguided designs to imprison it within a building, trademark it to a person
and tether it to human rules and regulations.

And this is why the Cross lies in an open hill, stripped bare and
naked, broken and torn for our sake. No one owns it. No one has a prior right
to claim it. No one can turn this love into a religious ritual to bind, a theological
doctrine to impress, a commercial tool to exploit, or a charisma factor to
entice, beguile and entrap.

This love is freely given, and it is freely received. It transcends
time, institutions, personality and human rules. It is the cornerstone of our
faith from the bleeding heart of our Saviour.

So, thank you Lord for the Cross. Thank you for the sacrifice. And
this Christmas may mean many things to many people. But nothing defines the
season better than the love that prevailed to the end – even to the end of
time. Amen. Cheerz.

Father
Christmas is mystery no more. While the Lord still works in mysterious ways,
scientists have finally solved the question of how an overweight, loud and aged
Saint Nicholas could deliver all the presents in one night, fit into a narrow
chimney and maneuver undetected in the still of the night.

Thanks
to Einstein, Dr Katy Sheen (from the geography department of the British
college) applied the theory of relativity to unlock the time and speed factors
of Kris Kringle's Christmas escapades. Here's how it works, and I am going a
little rogue on the science.

Now,
we all know that time and space is relative to that of the speed of light. So,
according to Dr Sheen, "Santa Claus and his reindeer would have to travel
at about 10 million kmh - more than 200,000 times faster than Usain Bolt, the
world's fastest man - to deliver presents to every children...in a span of 31
hours."

That's
not all. The greater dilemma for the obese Mr Claus is the chimney. But as
Santa approaches lightspeed, he takes on a more aerodynamic shape and he
shrinks or gets thinner. That solves the weight issue. Then, how about his
signature "Ho! Ho! Ho!" that would wake up the whole neighbour?

That's
simple. Dr Sheen pins it down to the Doppler effect. Speed bends not just time
and space, it also changes frequency - that is, sound waves - as the object
approaches.

So,
"as Santa Claus and his sleigh approach, the sound of bells and his deep
"ho, ho, ho" would get higher and higher (like when an ambulance
siren whizzes by) and then become completely silent, because he would move
beyond human hearing range."

As an
aside, for the philosophy student, so much for Occam’s razor (that is, when you
have two explanations for a phenomenon, choose the simpler one). No one is thus
going to die the cuts of a thousand qualifications here to explain that Santa
Claus exists (aka Antony Flew).

Oops,
you may ask: "How the heck is Santa going to travel that fast?" Dr
Sheen sort of answered it. "Well, that's magic! However, he would
certainly need a lot of fuel - so don't forget his glass of sherry, a mince pie
or two, and some carrots for the reindeers!"

Lesson?
...

Alas,
I am not going to lie to you guys anymore. I refuse to practise intellectual
dishonesty. Santa Claus is a load of hogwash. He is as real as the fairies in
the bottom of the pond or the little tiny teacup orbiting around the rings of
Saturn.

But
this doesn't change Christmas for us believers, right? They don't call it
Christmas for nothing and the "Christ" in Christmas has to mean
something right?

Maybe
it has nothing to do with Einstein, the speed of light, or the Doppler effect.
Maybe Christmas is about powers far greater than that, deeper and wider in
effect.

Trust
me, there is no magic in Christmas. No make-believe. No elves, pixie dusts or
wishing wells. Christmas (not so much the day as it is the spirit of it) has
always been about love. Love of family. Love of friends. Love of spouses and
love of parents for their children.

And
if we go behind the festivities, the champagne glasses, the presents, and the
Christmas tree, Christmas is really all about relationship. More to the point,
it is about a sacrifice that started it all.

There
is therefore no magic in Christmas because Jesus needed no magic to demonstrate
what his love means to the world. Yet far magical than magic, Jesus lived the
most ordinary life to deliver the most extraordinary of transformations.

He
was not intangible, a spirit or a hologram. He was no make-believe. He walked,
talked and lived amongst the least of us. He is part of our history; not some
fabled tale or rumored story.

Now,
our Lord may work in mysterious ways, and he still does, but not Jesus. He came
to redefine love, set the truth in our hearts, and burn a passion in us that
would never die.

There
are in fact three simple things that makes Christmas not only special but
empowering: the towel and basin, the hearty supper and the Cross. The
metanarrative in each of these things redefined and transformed the world.

And
if you want to celebrate Christmas, whether you are a believer or not, you
can't not talk about him, his teachings, his deeds, his sacrifice, his love.
You may be hard-pressed to accept his claims, but you can't deny his acts, his
heart and his impact.

No
man I know came, existed and led with such clarity of purpose from birth to
death, such humility of spirit from breath to breath, and such sacrifice of
love from a heart that promises enduring rest.

So, this weekend,
you can cut that juicy, stuffed turkey, slice into that bacon ham, and exchange
the most expensive presents. But if you leave Christ out of Christmas, you
leave out not a religious ritual in the celebration. You however leave behind
the true meaning of Christmas, and that is, a love that gave all because it
never gave up. Cheerz.

Sunday, 18 December 2016

Spoiler
alert: A megachurch preacher is no more
narcissistic than the many people I have come to know in my life (myself
included). And when it comes to narcissism, the general observation is that it
is one of degree.

In other
words, the desire to feel special is a universal sentiment, and it is not
necessarily always a bad thing. Find me a man who is at constant enmity with
himself and he will likely turn out to be a very unhealthy individual who may
just find the continuation of life unbearable or the cessation of life
irresistible.

The
inescapable reality about narcissism is that we are all guilty of it to some
extent. And not surprisingly, in certain circumstances, it can even be healthy. Some call it positive
illusions where we tell ourselves that we are smarter, faster, stronger, wiser,
funnier, tougher, and even prettier than our neighbor or the general population
at large. A little self-promotion is quite unavoidable (although for the
religious, it takes forever to admit it).

Sportsmen do
it all the time (that is, self-promotion) before a competition to gain that
mental edge. Politicians do it to psyche themselves up just before a speech.
Students often overrate themselves in intelligence, character and looks just to
feel special, restore self-esteem, or give them a pat on the back. You can call
it self-affirmation, self-assertion or self-assurance, but the semantics do not
change the fact that a little touch of ego can firm up our resolve, lift our
hope, and embolden our spirit.

Dr. Craig
Malkin, a clinical psychologist and lecturer for Harvard Medical School wrote
this in his book Rethinking Narcissism: “We need our grandiosity at
times to feel happy and healthy. And a growing body of recent research
concludes that a little narcissism, in adolescence, helps the young survive the
Sturm und Drang (German for “Storm and Stress”) of youth; moderate teenage
narcissists are less anxious and depressed and have far better relationships
than their low and high narcissist peers. Likewise, corporate leaders with
moderate narcissism are rated by their employees as far more effective than
those with too little or too much. And my own research with my colleagues is
pointing in the same direction: only people who never feel special or feel special
all the time pose a threat to themselves and the world. The difference between
narcissists and the rest of us is one of degree, not kind.”

So, if you
view it on a spectrum with one extreme representing “psychopathic narcissism”
and the other extreme representing “suicidal self-negation”, I trust the
majority of us hovers safely around the middle goldilocks zone of a healthy
promotion of self. Seen in this light, narcissism only becomes a problem of
character when one moves to the extreme.

In a recent
interview, Amos Yee - sporting a new haircut - declared to the world that he is
a changed teen. He attributed feminism to his gentler change of writing style
and approach to confronting controversial issues. But whether he is serious or
sincere about it, I guess only time will time.

My point here
is that this is the same individual who will readily tell you that he has made
a huge difference in the pursuit of free speech in Singapore. He unabashedly
said that he has transitioned from “entertainer” to “a full-fledged activist.”
He calls himself a “public figure” who wields enduring influence with 50,000
followers on social media. In his own eyes, it is more likely than not that he
sees himself as a star, a trailblazer, a revolution of one. In certain quarters,
Amos may just fit the image of someone who is quite full of himself.

Then comes
Joseph Schooling. He is our first Olympic gold medalist. He beat three other
world best, including Phelps, to come up tops in the recent Rio Olympics. His
story is all over the papers. Books have been written about him.
Parliamentarians recently gave him a standing ovation. And he will go down in
local history as the sportsman of all time.

Yet, all
these accolades, rewards and recognition did little to change him. He is still
as self-effacing as before. Unlike flies to light, he does not gravitate
towards the limelight. His achievement came out of many years of quiet
determination and unfaltering focus. He attributed his success to his devoted
parents who have always believed in him. He gave credit to others especially
his coach and even his domestic maid for 19 years.

It is
undeniable that Schooling is a down-to-earth guy and putting him on the
spectrum, you can say that he has a reasonably healthy view of himself – mostly
due to his upbringing. He would therefore flourish safely in the middle of it.
As for Amos, well, on the same spectrum, my view is that he is somewhere biased
towards the extreme.

So this
brings me to why I wrote this post.

Recently,
Kong Hee posted a video on his Facebook about his trip to Cipinang, Jakarta.
His video showed him being offered the presidential treatment on his way to the
Church in Jakarta with police escorts in the front and back. He said that he
was grateful for the hospitality shown and wanted to express his appreciation
to the organizer in his Facebook post.

His post and
many others exclusively showing how he is making waves in the churches all over
Asia led me to ponder on the title of this post, that is, Are megachurch
preachers narcissistic?

Incidentally,
in a recent article written by the vice-chairman of the medical board of IMH,
Dr Chong Siow Ann, the title reads: "Is Trump a narcissist?"
The consensus is unanimous here. Harvard professor Howard Gardner called him
"remarkably narcissistic" Clinical psychologist Ben Michealis
believed that Trump suffered from a "textbook narcissistic personality
disorder." Yet another commentary in the august British Medical
Journal reads: "It is obvious that Trump is sexist and racist. He is vile
in his nastiness, undiplomatic and offensive; a true dog's dinner of a
president candidate, if you really hated your dog. But none of this means he
has a psychiatric condition. It just means that he's a horrible
man."

Now, while
Trump fits the bill, unofficially at least, is it then obvious here with the
megachurch preachers? In other words, what can one say about Kenneth Copeland
who once encouraged believers to "speak an eighty-two-foot yacht into
existence? Or Creflo Dollar seeking donation of $65m for a private jet? Or
Robert Tilton's admission that he "had to undergo plastic surgery to
remove the bags from under his eyes"? These are people who does not just
cause a splash in the publicity world. They practically command a media
tsunamis with their presence, stage antics and extravagant lifestyle.

So, going
back to Kong Hee, it should be noted that, after his conviction and appeal,
Kong Hee has neither moderated his visibility in social media nor stayed out of
the media limelight. If you want to find out what he is doing, the impact he is
making, the thousands of believers who adore him on a day-to-day or
week-to-week basis, it is just a click away on his Facebook.

He doesn’t
appear to be someone who avoids the public attention. He is undeniably
a celebrity evangelist who makes God known by making himself known too. At
times, the public perception is that the adulation or recognition is shared
between himself and God. At other times, and again in terms of public
perception, he runs the risk of putting himself, the messenger, ahead of the
message - intention aside.

At this
juncture, the haunting words of a former megachurch pastor (and grandson of
Billy Graham) who resigned from the ministry because of two affairs which ended
his marriage are highly instructive: "...The shift from locating my
identity in the message of the Gospel to locating my identity in my success as
a messenger of the Gospel was slow and subtle...My confidence was severely
misplaced: Confidence in status, reputation, power and position, the way I
spoke, the praise I received, financial security and success." (Tullian
Tchividjian).

Now, let me
be clear, I am as guilty as Kong Hee when it comes to dealing with the
struggles of self. It is a touchy subject where pride, ego, overconfidence and
the hidden desires for self-significance has always been the root cause of many
good men’s fall. The Bible is replete with examples of how power, wealth and
fame have wrecked havoc in the lives of great men of God.

If the Bible
is seen in the perspective of self, it can readily be surmised as such: God
created self in His image; self enjoyed creation; self joined another as one;
self was tempted; self fell; self killed another; self was destroyed in a flood
save for the ark; self populated the earth once more; self grew into tribes;
self clamored for a human government; self strayed from God; self took on other
idols; self rebelled; self was taken to the Cross; self was crucified; self was
redeemed; self was transformed; self was lost but now found; self is subjected
to the Spirit of God.

Yet in all
this, we still struggle with self, with greed, with lust, with pride, with
envy, with domination, and with grandiose. It is a timeless struggle of varying
degree of intractability. In fact, the history of the Bible is the history of
our tumultuous relationship with self and how we endeavor by His Spirit to
subject it to the redemptive power of the Cross (notwithstanding that we have
been justified by faith). The struggles are nevertheless still ongoing, and for
some, dauntingly monumental.

Kong Hee is
therefore no different here except that he, like many other megachurch
preachers, is constantly placed on a pedestal that is not only highly visible
and highly adored, but is, by the nature of his calling, also highly
susceptible to the relentless promotion of self. By this, I mean that every
time Kong Hee makes a statement, performs a deed or even scratches an itch, he
has the ears, endorsements and thumbs-up of thousands. At most times, he can’t
help but feel special all the time. (Mind you, one does an alleged humble spirit and a contrite heart no favors by exacting a certain deliberateness to expose oneself to the glare of public and media attention. I sincerely believe that humility is not just the absence of pride or arrogance. It is also the absence of self-contrived opportunities that offer pride an environment to flourish and possibly take over - even unknowingly).

That is why I
pondered on that question about megachurch preachers. Are they more prone to
the siren call of the self for recognition, power, control, earthly praises and
adoration? Will they one day at the height of their successes see themselves as
not only highly favored and specially elected by God, but also invariably
indispensable to the ministry? Are they thus more susceptible to get carried
away, be deluded with power, be intoxicated by the constant attention, be led
astray by inching unknowingly towards the other extreme of the narcissism
spectrum?

Alas,
this has happened to all great men who stand out in a crowd. King David fell
when he was perched on a tower overlooking a certain showering event. King
Solomon rode high on wisdom and entered into questionable marital unions that
for a time led him away from God. And we have King Saul who was filled with
murderous intent right till his death. He died an impenitent man.

Indeed, with
great power comes great responsibility, and with great responsibility comes
great accountability, and with great accountability comes great susceptibility.
If Narcissus was cursed by the goddess of vengeance, Nemesis, to a deathly
plunge into the depths of his own unattainable image reflected in the waters,
then isn’t the curse of mankind the image of self that is reflected in the
depth of his soul which constantly calls to him to do her carnal biddings?

This is the
essence of Paul’s struggles which he readily admitted to in Romans 7 at the
time when he was beholden to the flesh: “I do not understand what I do. For
what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do…For I have desire to do
what is good but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do,
but the evil I do not want to do – this I keep doing.” Well, at the risk of
oversimplifying, this is essentially Narcissism-101 and no man (or woman) is
exempted.

Aristotle
once asked this question: “Who should the good man love more? – Himself, or
others?” And he answered: “The good man is particularly selfish.” I guess when
John the Baptist said, “He must become greater and greater, but I must become
less and less,” he was not calling for complete self-abnegation, but the
constant subjection of self to the disciplines of the Spirit. In other words,
in the context of the narcissism spectrum I referred to earlier, I believe John
the Baptist would have placed the self in the healthy middle where we neither
lose our self (in excessive self condemnation) nor allow the self to dominate
wholly and mindlessly.

And this
brings me to the risk that megachurch preachers face when they are constantly
in the limelight, elevated to a place of prominence, showered with superlatives
from devout fans, and god forbid, deluded into believing in their own
invulnerability when they are surfing on the crest of their own popularity.
What is disconcerting is when the members are prepared to overlook their
leader’s transgressions or flaws by justifying them as a small moral price to
pay in return for successes in numbers, growth and wealth, and thereby
conveniently using it as an endorsement of the “rightness” of their support
(the end is therefore made right by whatever the means).

In Kong Hee’s
case, if the legal saga is anything to go by, Judge See’s words should give
ample warning to other megachurch leaders of what a culture of secrecy and
blind allegiance, and “a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness” can do to a
leadership that believe they can do all that is expedient in the short term,
with whatever dubious means possible, to achieve a project goal at all costs,
and at the expense of full accountability, disclosure and integrity (that is,
the misleading album sales).

Again, for
the church, the issue here is not that Kong Hee has done no wrong (that is,
leadership wise - putting aside the criminal conviction, appeal and all). His
members would readily admit that Kong Hee has erred. The issue here is
ironically how the members are prepared to overlook all that by convincing
themselves that he is only human, and leaders like him are expected (even
allowed) to make mistakes. This collective mindset effectively absolves all such
leaders of the need to be transparent, accountable and even repentant.

So, going
back full circle, Are megachurch preachers narcissistic? Well, I guess
it all depends. Since no men is exempted, the risk is always lurking not too
far away. I am sure preachers like Joseph Prince, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, T.D.
Jakes and the late Jerry Falwell have their fair share of struggles over the
years. Each of them has their strength and flaws as with all human leadership.

The safeguard here is for the members to
check their leaders, to hold them accountable, to remind them of their
responsibility to the church, to assist, serve and respect them no doubt, but
never at the expense of turning a blind eye, and to stand up for what is right,
even at times when they have to stand alone. On this, I follow my Savior's lead. In living, he set the example. In dying, he lived the example. And in rising, he calls us to follow His example. It is an example that he was prepared to stand alone at Calvary so as to reign victorious in our hearts. Cheerz.